The FCC has demanded that Apple and AT&T explain the process by which applications are rejected. In particular its asking what contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T influence app store rejections.

The government also asked, "Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?"

The insinuation by AT&T, though, that it plays no part in app store policing and that regulation is solely the work of Apple is flat out false, though. AT&T previously ordered Apple to force Slingbox to operate over WiFi only. AT&T had stated:

Slingbox, which would use large amounts of wireless network capacity, could create congestion and potentially prevent other customers from using the network. The application does not run on our 3G wireless network. Applications like this, which redirect a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service. We consider smartphones like the iPhone to be personal computers in that they have the same hardware and software attributes as PCs.

Steve Jobs also noted during a Q&A session that AT&T is actively policing voice-over-IP apps. He stated that AT&T is the reason why apps like Skype are WiFi only. In the end it appears that despite its claims of innocence, AT&T may play more of a role in iPhone app policing than it admits.

The finger pointing by AT&T does illustrate increasing tension between the two companies. Apple took a number of apparent snipes at AT&T during its Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) keynote address, where it introduced the new iPhone 3G S.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Still don't see an issue to get the government involved though. Apple doesn't want their product used in a way that diminishes their profits. I think it's all psychological. When Apple introduced the App Store people for some reason think that they have absolute freedom to develop and distribute anything they want on the App Store.

Would the world be any better if there was no App Store and the only iPhone apps were first party apps dev'd by Apple? Either way you don't get Google Voice on your iPhone.

It'd be nice if they at least posted some rules you had to follow for an app to be approved. As such I'm sure they don't (or at least not all the rules), else Google wouldn't have bothered making this app for the iPhone.

Rules? then apple would have to follow something as well and couldn't make them up as they go along. From what I can tell you make an application and submit it. Apple checks it out steals your ideas and then says your application does the same functions one of their owns apps is going to do but its not out yet. Podcaster ring a bell?

Apple makes me sick with how dirty they run their business. Jobs is a scum bag in my book. Apple is the most anti-competitive company out there from what I can tell. But their so called small market share allows them to do as they want without Government intervention. Let me put it this way. Apple has a monopoly on apple hardware/software combos. itunes only works with the apple products. Music is locked to your apple products.

They hide their failures by making people sign gag orders in order to get a refund. I wish my iphone exploded and burnt my leg or something. Not that I want their money. I'd give it all away if I won a lawsuit against them. The world needs to know just how unethical apple really is.